Corrupt officers may lose super

The State Government will investigate changes to superannuation laws to prevent corrupt officials from receiving superannuation payouts.

The announcement yesterday followed claims that a corrupt police detective, who resigned days before he was convicted and jailed for drug dealing, received a $600,000 superannuation payment.

Malcolm Rosenes was sentenced to six years' jail after being convicted of trafficking in ecstasy, cocaine and hashish.

In raids that led to Rosenes' arrest, police seized ecstasy with a street value of almost $4 million.

Rosenes was allowed to resign from the force nine days before he was sentenced in the County Court in October to a minimum of three-and-a-half years' jail.

Estimates of the corrupt policeman's payments into the Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme over 25 years of service in the force were put at $100,000, with an additional $500,000 as the employer's contribution.

Finance Minister John Lenders said no time frame for any changes had been set, but he hoped action could be taken quickly.

"It's an important public policy issue here of what happens when public officials have corruptly used their position and the benefits that they may get from it . . . and where the state-funded part of superannuation comes in," Mr Lenders said.

"That's a public policy issue that we need to deal with . . . The starting point being that we do not want officials who corruptly use their positions to benefit from that."

A Queensland model, which reduces or removes the public superannuation contribution of a corrupt official, was one option, he said.

Opposition Leader Robert Doyle said existing police regulations indicated that Rosenes would not have been entitled to any superannuation if he had been sacked.

Police regulations made it clear that any member of the force dismissed for misconduct could not be entitled to any gratuity or pension, Mr Doyle said.

"I don't see why there needs to be further decision-making about this," he said. "The Police Regulations Act seems entirely clear. They did have the power to sack this officer and take away his pension.

"I am not sure what the police decision-making has been not to dismiss this corrupt officer immediately and refuse to allow him to have that pension."

But Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon said it would have made no difference to the amount whether Rosenes was sacked or he resigned.

She said senior police might have allowed Rosenes to resign provided he co-operated and gave information about other criminals.

But Mr Doyle said he was uncomfortable with the suggestion that Rosenes may have been rewarded.

"I think that there does need to be a transparency about it," he said.

"I would think there are question marks about trading, for instance, a superannuation benefit against information."

Mr Lenders said the details of Rosenes' case, particularly why he was allowed to resign instead of being sacked, were operational issues for the police.